hercules, I see a problem with your question. As I understand oils, None of the latest oils are natural. They could all be considered synthetic. They are all cracked (modified) after being pumped out of the ground. 50 (100?) years ago oil was pumped out of the ground and then distilled by its boiling point. Thicker oils boil at higher temperatures. I have read that Amsoil and Mobil 1 oil is a PAO (type 4). Castrol (and most other synthetics) are type 3 hydrocracked. I think esters are type 5, but I don't know where they are used. So most blends would seem to be a mix of cracked and hydrocracked. Mobil 1 should be a mix of cracked and PAO's. So I would think the question should be what type of oil AND what percentage. I am not sure that it even matters which base is used. Perhaps we should look at the approvals on the back label. While the SL (and SM) oils have better testing and improved refineing to meet the testing, I have read that euopean standards are even tougher. BTW.. I saw the evidence that mobil 1 was way better than valvaline 25 years ago. But then in 1990, mobil had a new formulation. then they came out with a new version in the late 90's. And now they are on their 2nd or 3rd version of supersynth. Other (conventional) oils have changed just as much, or maybe more. Oh, As to mobil 1 pouring easier than valvoline, we had a winter in 1983 (dec) that had many mornings below -30. I took jars of 5w-30 outside and tipped them over several mornings. Both 5w-30 oils (valvoline and mobil 1) poured about the same. But of course they do, that what the 5w-xx means! The mobil 1 looked like a smooth honey. The valvoline looked awful, that would be cloudy and even chunky. I also had a 10-30, but it set up and wouldn't pour at all when turned over, hence its thicker rateing. Further, In the car the valvoline broke down under pressure to be thinner much faster and let the oil pressure go down much faster than mobil 1. So mobil 1 gave higher oil pressure for longer. The valvoline reminded me of jello, poor flow, but little resistance to pressure. JerryO

One of our best growers here used half-strength WP with a bacterial product applied every two weeks for some years in NW Arkansas, where BS pressure is medium high. It worked to some extent, but she wasn't fully satisfied and eventually went to a synthetic fungicide-- may or may not be still using the WP as well. Another expert grower in upstate NY recommends full strength (or more) WP to control mildew on once-blooming Gallicas. Anti-transpirant used routinely at full summer strength will reduce growth (maybe not a concern on once-bloomers). In a study, anti-transpirants such as Cloud Cover that use acrylic resin rather than pine resin were found slightly more effective, apparently because WP develops microscopic cracks. Half-strength anti-transpirant definitely has some effect on mildew and blackspot, and it may be in the ballpark with other organic remedies such as sulfur, oil, or oil plus bicarbonate. (Do not combine sulfur with the other treatments, as the combination will burn foliage.)

hi eliza.... actually, I went to a local flooring company and found a different piece of flooring (from the same manufacturer as the sisal i originally linked) made of 50% wool/50% alpaca....which i think will work better for me.....this particular type on carpet, it is recommended you use a pad...I'm getting a thin felt pad and using the cap and band method of installation... i haven't ordered it yet, as I plan to go to a couple more distributors, but assuming i don't see something else i like better, this is the way I plan to go... Here is a link that might be useful: wool/alpaca carpet for stairs

G.Tom: No, I have made no such claims of 'purity'. In fact, I conducted a little research previously related to cotton burr compost and it was in some ways inconclusive. https://www.gardenweb.com/discussions/1626234/pesticide-residues-in-cotton-burr-compost?n=34 In any case, the article you linked states, "It is estimated that as much as 65% of hazardous conventional cotton production ends up in our food chain." "Conventional cottonseed oil may be highly contaminated with pesticide residues..." No supporting evidence is offered. FIFRA requires that all pesticides undergo a certain amount of testing for safety. Not everyone agrees that this ensures safety in all respects, including me. But any use of a crop for food - including cottonseed for oil - has to be included as a potential exposure risk. Statements like the above seem to ignore the fact that testing and risk assessment (evaluation of the expected residue concentration and dose vs. toxicity of the chemical) have to be done. Simply saying that X food product may be highly contaminated (and therefore dangerous) without any consideration of actual data kind of irks me. That's all I'm saying. I'm not even claiming it's safe, but I do claim that it was someone's responsibility to consider it. It's almost like people just assume they've discovered some very basic angle that the regulatory system completely missed. For anyone interested, here's a good article from Food Safety Magazine explaining the registration and monitoring process. https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/december-2013january-2014/pesticide-residue-testing-of-food-ingredients-monitoring-for-compliance-and-safety/ Notably, in its monitoring program, "FDA found violative residues in 1.4 percent of 1,385 domestic food samples tested, in contrast to finding violations in 4.0 percent of 4,196 foreign food samples." This is 2009 data but at least demonstrates that someone is looking. EPA has a page on food safety including the Food Quality Protection Act: https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/food-and-pesticides Our regulatory system has flaws. We all know it. But let's at least acknowledge that there is one, and take into account what it does, and find ways to improve it, rather than pretend everything out there is hazardous and that no one cares if the big bad corporations poison everyone.